Protest Decisions

OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR

for the

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

IN RE: FRANK HALSTEAD,                   )           Protest Decision 2016 ESD 248

                        )           Issued: June 16, 2016

            Protestor.                                           )           OES Case Nos. P-281-050516-FW   

____________________________________)                                  

Frank Halstead, member and delegate candidate in Local Union 572, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2015-2016 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”).  The protest alleged violations of the Rules in two particulars: first, that candidates and supporters campaigned on time paid for by the union; and second, that a Local Union 572 business agent attended a labor-management meeting wearing a campaign t-shirt.

            Election Supervisor representative Deborah Schaaf investigated this protest. 

Findings of Fact and Analysis

The protest alleged that on May 4, 2016, Rick Middleton, delegate candidate, and several supporters campaigned on union-paid time at Transdev, an employer under the jurisdiction of Local Union 572.  Article VII, Section 12(b) prohibits union officials and employees from campaigning on union-paid time while noting that campaigning while on vacation is not prohibited.

Investigation showed the following concerning pay status of each campaign during the hours he/she campaigned:

            Local Union 572 provided our investigator with written vacation requests for each of the members said to be on vacation all or part of May 4. 

            The protestor supplied no evidence to support the allegation that any of these members campaigned on union-paid time.

            The protest’s second allegation asserted that business agent Traci Smith wore a campaign t-shirt into a labor-management meeting.  Campaign emblems cannot be worn in labor-management grievance meetings.  Sullivan, 2011 ESD 268 (May 28, 2011) (wearing delegate election campaign button into labor-management meeting violates Rules); Stockton, 2001 EAD 292 (March 31, 2001) (member displays of campaign emblems prohibited while dealing with any third party as a representative of the union). 

            The protestor alleged that Smith wore a campaign t-shirt while campaigning in the Transdev parking lot on May 4.  Then, at 9:30 a.m., the protestor observed Smith enter the facility and heard her state that she had a meeting with management and that “I’m going in like this; I’m not changing.”  The protestor’s evidence was corroborated by fellow campaigner Gabriel Avina, who told our investigator that one of the Middleton cohort told Smith, “You have your campaign t-shirt on,” to which Smith replied, “Yes, I’m not changing.”

            Smith adamantly told our investigator that she did not wear a campaign t-shirt into the meeting with management.  She stated she wore a different, neutral, shirt under her campaign t-shirt, that she pulled the campaign shirt off fifteen minutes before entering the facility, and changed into business attire in a restroom inside the facility before attending the meeting.  The steward who also campaigned with Middleton supporters corroborated this evidence, stating that she noted to Smith that Smith was wearing a campaign t-shirt, to which Smith replied, “I’m going in to get dressed for the meeting.”  A Transdev supervisor told our investigator that she saw Smith inside the facility that day and noted nothing unusual about her attire.  Another steward in the facility stated she saw Smith inside wearing a denim jacket.

            No evidence was presented that Smith wore a campaign t-shirt when attending a meeting with management.  Even if she entered the employer’s facility wearing such a shirt, the prohibition applies to meetings with management, not mere entry of employer facilities.

            On the facts presented with respect to both allegations, we DENY this protest.

Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within two (2) working days of receipt of this decision.  The parties are reminded that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no party may rely upon evidence that was not presented to the Office of the Election Supervisor in any such appeal.  Requests for a hearing shall be made in writing, shall specify the basis for the appeal, and shall be served upon:

Kathleen A. Roberts

Election Appeals Master

JAMS

620 Eighth Avenue, 34^th floor

New York, NY 10018

kroberts@jamsadr.com

Copies of the request for hearing must be served upon the parties, as well as upon the Election Supervisor for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 1050 17^th Street, N.W., Suite 375, Washington, D.C. 20036, all within the time prescribed above.  A copy of the protest must accompany the request for hearing.

                                                                        Richard W. Mark

                                                                        Election Supervisor

cc:        Kathleen A. Roberts

            2016 ESD 248

DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED):